Sowell Dreams Of Military Coup

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, way to completely misinterpret and misrepresent Sowell. Even the cherry picking you quoted has no resemblance to what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. As others have pointed out, I was "forced" to 'cherry pick' the quote because there was absolutely no context surrounding it. The article was merely one of Sowell's disjointed rants about the grave threats liberals pose. Liberals pose such a threat, in fact, that apparently the military may one day need to march on Washington to save us.

So what important context did I miss here -- the fact that Sowell is 'exhausted' by CNBC's personal finance guru Suze Orman, or that he's nostalgic for the days when starting pitchers in major league baseball pitched complete games?

If you feel this is important context to add, let me make amends here: Sowell is disillusioned when he channel surfs and sees Suze Orman. And real men like Babe Ruth used to pitch 14 innings in a game; those pussies today who dare call themselves pitchers hardly ever go 9 innings anymore. And if moral degeneracy in America continues, the military may need to stage a coup d'etat to save us.

I'm not exactly sure I 'misrepresented' him, either I linked to his article, and I'm fairly certain I quoted him accurately. My copy and paste function works, I think -- but feel free to double check anyway.

As for 'misinterpreting' him, again -- I'm not sure how many different ways we can 'interpret' the claim that a military coup may be needed to save us from moral degeneracy. It seems pretty straight-forward. We're not talking about a Bob Dylan song or Finnegans Wake here. So I'm pretty sure I understood what Sowell was getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you quoted him fine, but nowhere in that quote is he "lusting for a military coup." That's flat out absurd.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Cite one restriction of American freedom from the RIGHT and.....
I will cite 3 restrictions of American freedom from the LEFT (or 3x+ the damage in quality).

Big Govt = Less freedom. The left has been the biggest proponent of big govt. The right has their moments but NOTHING compared to the left. Only the most intellectual LAZY, can claim they are both equally to blame....

If a civil war every did occur in the USA, the right would win EASILY. The lefties have a long history of running from fights.....

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response, I had a bit of the drop or would not have been so ham-handedly confrontational. Your style is in fact somewhat refreshing on this board, although 'understanding' and 'conciliation' have no room in some subject manners that you choose to engage, in my not so humble view.

Well as to the matter at hand, to use a simple and common example, yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater is free speech, yet we quite correctly frown on such speech. A dogmatic interpretation of the First Amendment would allow it, as such when reading and interpreting the First Amendment, should it not be viewed with deference to social norms? Should my neighbor be allowed to yell obscenities at 2Am at the top of his lungs because the First Amendment says that no speech shall be abridged? If pornography is viewed in a similar vein then Bork argues that it should be restricted likewise, this is not a radical view in this context. How is my interpretation of Bork's perspective or the perspective itself wrongheaded?

[/ QUOTE ]

The example of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a bit different, and I'm afraid I don't recall all the legal points on the subject I heard once explained.

It might have something to do with the fact that it is not an act of expression, but rather an act intended solely to endanger others via the resultant panic of the crowd. I think there may be a better legal argument, though, which I simply forget. I admit that the above is not wholly satisfying, since a similar argument could be used to argue why pornography should not be protected (lack of expression of view, thought or feeling; and sole purpose to an arguably deleterious end). Maybe one of the lawyers on this forum could help out here - or maybe "pvn" could explain it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

The following might be merely a minor quibble: it could be worth noting that the U.S. Constitution does not directly protect free speech via the First Amendment; rather, it restrains Congress by stating that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" - which technically is a bit different, as the focus is on preventing Congress from instituting any restriction. I think there might be other parts of the Constitution which could actually offer more direct protection to free speech, along with certain other unspecified or unenumerated rights; but the fog of sleep has not yet fully lifted and I have barely progressed halfway through one cup of coffee. I will hope again that others more knowledgeable in matters of law will offer their perspectives on these points.

Cheers [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] - it was a good cup of coffee, and a pleasure responding to your post.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Cite one restriction of American freedom from the RIGHT and.....
I will cite 3 restrictions of American freedom from the LEFT (or 3x+ the damage in quality).

Big Govt = Less freedom. The left has been the biggest proponent of big govt. The right has their moments but NOTHING compared to the left. Only the most intellectual LAZY, can claim they are both equally to blame....

If a civil war every did occur in the USA, the right would win EASILY. The lefties have a long history of running from fights.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, but would you agree with the following assessment:

that over the last half-dozen or so years, the threats to the freedoms of Americans have come primarily from the Right?

Specifically:

1) the Patriot Act

2) the Total Information Awareness Project (which was shelved, then more recently reborn under a new name)

3) a law (I forget the name) which abridges the right of habeas corpus in furtherance of the War on Terror (and did this law actually pass?)

4) the UIGEA, which was slipped or ramrodded through by its right-wing sponsor

5) any others I'm forgetting?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, you quoted him fine, but nowhere in that quote is he "lusting for a military coup." That's flat out absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you, I "completely misinterpret and misrepresent Sowell", and that "the cherry picking" I quoted "has no resemblance to what you're saying".

But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

So, one more time, please answer these questions for me:

1) How did I misrepresent what he said?
2) How did I misinterpret what he said?
3) How did the 'cherry picking I quoted' have 'no resemblance' to what he said, given that you concede my copy and paste function works fine, and that what I posted in this thread is in fact what Sowell said.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
that over the last half-dozen or so years, the threats to the freedoms of Americans have come primarily from the Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

LDO, because that group happened to be the group in power.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
3) a law (I forget the name) which abridges the right of habeas corpus in furtherance of the War on Terror (and did this law actually pass?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Military Commissions Act of 2006, and yes, it did.

But hey, the left is just as bad. Didn't you hear about that Florida state legislator (a Democrat) who wanted to purge the term "illegal alien" from state documents? That is just a big a threat to our freedoms as giving the President carte blanche to suspend habeas corpus.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

[/ QUOTE ]

Latefordinner believes humanity can only be saved by a catastrophic reduction in population size. That doesn't mean he wants or lusts for catastrophe. It also doesn't mean 50 years ago (when in his opinion such a thing was not necessary, but if present trends continue it might be someday) that he "wants a global human life catastrophe to save us from environmental exploitation".

I won't be trapped into defending Sowell's statement itself as I don't agree with it, but I still think you're misrepresenting it, probably intentionally. This thread is pretty low, I would have expected better from you, this is cardcounter territory imo.

[West]

Related reading:

Today's (May 2) Glenn Greenwald column

"The right's explicit and candid rejection of 'the rule of law'"

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
But, apparently, what you you really have a problem with is that I used a bit of colorful prose and said Sowell is "lusting" for a military coup. I think it's a relatively appropriate characterization, but I can tone it down a bit. Let's instead say that "Sowell wants a military coup to cleanse perceived moral depravity".

[/ QUOTE ]

"When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup." - Thomas Sowell

It reads to me as though Sowell might wish for such an event, but it isn't clear that he wishes for it, or that he wishes for it at this point in time. To me it seems mostly as though he is trying to allow for the possibility that if things keep on their present course, a military coup might be the only thing that can "save" this country. While I do disagree with him, I think that is what he is trying to say.

So, I don't think it can firmly be concluded (based upon that quote) that he actually "wants" such a thing, although he might.

I do find his quote perplexing in other ways, such as how would a military coup actually "save" this country from degeneracy? Does Sowell presume the military to be far less compromised by degeneracy, and does he suppose that the great powers a successful military coup would bring to the top brass, would not potentiate corruption?

I also find it rather disturbing that Sowell seems to be suggesting that a military coup might actually be a viable solution to the problem (since I don't see how it could be a viable or acceptable solution). Well, at least he's not a legislator or top general [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

It just occurred to me that perhaps Sowell is not in favor of a military coup at all, either now or in the future, but is instead using hyperbole to illustrate the depths of degeneracy towards which this country's most influential people have slid and are sliding yet still. If so, he should realize that hyperbole is sometimes taken literally (did Sheryl Crowe actually mean that literally about one square? I'm still wondering).